The bill which the subcommittee passed
without amendment proposes “To
amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation
concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration
the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.”

In
a lively markup session, Republicans charged that if the EPA is not
reined in, its new greenhouse gas regulations already taking effect
will drive up energy costs dramatically, drive jobs overseas, and
give “unelected bureaucrats” sweeping new powers. Rep. John
Shimkus, R-Ill., explained that “Republicans believe that
greenhouse gases are not a criteria pollutant, the EPA should not
regulate it, and if they do, in doing so they will raise energy costs
which will hurt jobs. The other side wants to regulate greenhouse
gases, wants to increase energy costs, which will attack jobs. That's
the debate.”

Democrats
expressed sharply different views, insisting that the way to create
new jobs in the U.S. is to pursue clean energy technologies in this
country, boosting the U.S. economy while protecting Americans'
health. Otherwise, they warn, the U.S. will cede leadership to
counties like China and Germany which are already racing ahead in
developing clean energy and capturing the “green jobs” of the
future. Citing a 2007 Bush administration executive order and
recommendations from the Bush administration's EPA, Rep. Eliot Engel,
D-N.Y., pointed out that the current EPA is simply pursuing a course
laid out in detail by the Bush administration.

Engel
said based on Bush administration documents, “the steps that EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson is proposing under the Clean Air Act are
moderate and appropriate. They are also remarkably similar to the
measures that former EPA Administrator Johnson recommended to
President Bush. As Administrator Johnson's letter makes clear, EPA
under both Republican and Democratic administrations has had the same
view of the science that carbon emissions are definitely a serious
threat to our nation's welfare.”

Engel
cited a Jan. 2008 letter from Johnson to President Bush which stated
that “The latest science of climate change requires the Agency to
create a positive endangerment finding.” Engel then won reluctant
agreement from the subcommittee's staff counsel that “it
would be unprecedented for Congress to overturn” the EPA's
scientific endangerment finding. Engel concluded that “this will be
the first time that our committee will substitute its scientific
views for those of an expert agency and I think it would be an act of
striking arrogance for a group of politicians to overturn the
scientific determination made by an agency based on the work of
thousands of expert scientists.”

Following
the subcommittee's vote Thursday, HR 910 will now move to the full
House Energy & Commerce Committee for consideration.

This week’s guest on Open Mic is Governor Martin O’Malley a Democratic candidate for President in 2016. In this interview you’ll hear his views on renewable fuel policy, environmental stewardship, global trade and why he believes leading a state like Maryland uniquely qualifies his bid for the Oval Office.